Darshan S/O Prakashchand Dugad vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Imaamwada, Nagpur Dist. Nagpur — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Darshan S/O Prakashchand Dugad vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Imaamwada, Nagpur Dist. Nagpur — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Notice ordered to the respondents, returnable on 08/05/2025; learned A.P.P. waived notice for respondent No.1; applicant permitted to serve respondent No.2 by private mode in addition to regular mode of service and to file affidavit of service before the next date; interim direction that respondent No.1 shall not take any coercive action against the applicant till the next date.

Issue for consideration

Whether, prima facie, the alleged physical relations established by the applicant with respondent No.2 on many occasions between 10/11/2022 and 25/01/2025 were consensual, so that no offence as alleged constitutes against the applicant. +1 more

Court's answer

Till the next date (returnable on 08/05/2025), respondent No.1 was directed not to take any coercive action against the applicant in view of the Court's prima facie observations.

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie, on going through the contents of the FIR and the law laid down in the judgments relied upon (Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (2019) 9 SCC 608; Uday (2003) 4 SCC 46; Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon (2022) 18 SCC 662), the Court found substance in the submission that the relationship between the applicant and respondent No.2 was consensual and hence no offence constitutes against the applicant; this prima facie view formed the basis of the interim protection granted.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), Criminal Application (APL) No. 489 of 2025 — Darshan Prakashchand Dugad v. State of Maharashtra thr. PSO PS Imamwada Police Station, Nagpur & Anr. (Anil S. Kilor and Pravin S. Patil, JJ.; 25 April 2025). The applicant, an IPS Officer, faces an FIR concerning physical relations allegedly established with respondent No.2 on many occasions between 10/11/2022 and 25/01/2025. His counsel contended this was a case of consensual relations and that no offence as alleged constituted, placing reliance on Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (2019) 9 SCC 608, Uday (2003) 4 SCC 46 and Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon (2022) 18 SCC 662. Going through the FIR and the law laid down in those judgments, the Court prima facie found substance in the contention that the relationship was consensual and hence no offence constituted; it noted that, under the Disciplinary Rules applicable to the applicant, coercive action touching his employment was anticipated because of the FIR. Notice was issued returnable on 08/05/2025; the A.P.P. waived notice for respondent No.1; the applicant was permitted to serve respondent No.2 by private mode besides regular service and to file an affidavit of service; and respondent No.1 was directed not to take any coercive action till the next date.

1 907-APL489-2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APL) NO. 489 OF 2025

(DARSHAN PRAKASHCHAND DUGAD...VS..STATE OF MAH. THR. PSO PS IMAMWADA POLICE STATION, NAGPUR & ANR.)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Shri R.M.Bhangde, Advocate for Applicant. Shri Amit R.Chutke, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1.

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND PRAVIN S. PATIL, JJ.

DATED : APRIL 25, 2025 .

Heard.

2 . Shri Bhangde, learned counsel for the applicant argues that this is a case of consensual relations and the period is between 10/11/2022 to 25/01/2025, during which allegedly the applicant on many occasions established physical relations with the non-applicant No.2.

3 . To substantiate his argument that no offence, as alleged, constitutes against the applicant, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the cases of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar ..vs.. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2019) 9 SCC 608 , Uday ..vs.. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 and Salimbhai Hamidbhai Menon ..vs.. Niteshkumar Maganbhai Patel and Another, reported in (2022) 18 SCC 662 .

2 907-APL489-2025

4 . Having gone through the contents of the FIR and the law laid down in the above referred judgments, prima-facie we find substance in the submission made by the learned counsel that there was a consensual relationship and hence, no offence constitutes. The applicant is an IPS Officer and as per the Disciplinary Rules applicable to the applicant, because of the said FIR, some coercive action in relation to his employment is anticipated.

5 . In that view of the matter, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 08/05/2025 .

6 . Shri Amit Chutke, learned A.P.P. waives notice for the respondent No.1.

7 . The applicant is permitted to serve the respondent No.2 by private mode in addition to regular mode of service and shall file affidavit of service before next date.

8 . Furthermore, in view of the above referred observations, we direct the respondent No.1 not to take any coercive action till next date.

(PRAVIN S.PATIL,J) (ANIL S.KILOR,J)

RRaut..

Signed by: Raut (RR) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 25/04/2025 18:37:15